Bug 571

Summary:	man postinstall: default man.conf not updated
Product:	cygwin	Reporter:	Mark Harig <maharig>
Component:	Cygwin Applications	Assignee:	Reini Urban <rurban>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED
Severity:	normal	CC:	john.r.morrison
Priority:	P2
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Host:		Target:
Build:		Last reconfirmed:

Description Mark Harig 2004-11-24 17:24:52 UTC

When the 'man' package is upgraded, the code in /etc/postinstall/man.sh.done
does not update the configuration file for 'man' (i.e.,
/usr/share/misc/man.conf) even if the configuration file has not been changed by
the user.  The update code in 'man.sh.done' does not check to see whether the
configuration file has been changed.  It only checks to see if it exists
already.  Possibly, something like the file
/etc/preremove/base-files-manifest.lst should be created for 'man'.  Or, if the
'base-files' package is a prerequisite to 'man' (and therefore always installed
by 'setup.exe') then the /usr/share/misc/man.conf could be added to
'base-files-manifest.lst'.

$ cygcheck -c base-files man
Cygwin Package Information
Package              Version        Status
base-files           3.1-4          OK
man                  1.5o-1         OK

Comment 1 Reini Urban 2004-11-24 17:58:46 UTC

See the thread about http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-11/msg00998.html

Comment 2 Igor Pechtchanski 2004-11-24 18:56:13 UTC

(In reply to comment #1)
See also http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-11/msg01005.html
Technically, the above suggestion proposes a change in the base-files package,
so should this be a separate bugzilla entry?

Comment 3 John Morrison 2004-11-24 19:14:21 UTC

Unless the /usr/share/misc/man.conf is made part of base-files I don't think
that this is a good thing.  Manifests should only contain files which are part
of the package which installed them.

Comment 4 Mark Harig 2004-11-24 19:58:51 UTC

>Unless the /usr/share/misc/man.conf is made part of base-files I don't think
>that this is a good thing.  Manifests should only contain files which are part
>of the package which installed them.

I agree that the manifest for 'man' belongs with the 'man' package and not with
the 'base-files' package.  It brings up a dependency problem if the common code
suggested by Igor P. was factored out:

1. base-files:

   - /etc/preremove/base-files.sh
   - /etc/preremove/base-files-manifest.lst

2. man:

   - /etc/preremove/man.sh  *NEW*
   - /etc/preremove/man-manifest.lst   *NEW*

3. /etc/preremove/common.sh (NEW) - where would this belong?

Comment 5 John Morrison 2004-11-25 13:46:16 UTC

> 1. base-files:
> 2. man:
> 3. /etc/preremove/common.sh (NEW) - where would this belong?

Good question :)  Choices: new package/base-files/...?

Just for peoples information, I nicked the manifest stuff from the gcc preremove
scripts :)

Comment 6 Mark Harig 2004-11-26 18:19:39 UTC

>> 1. base-files:
>> 2. man:
>> 3. /etc/preremove/common.sh (NEW) - where would this belong?
>
> Good question :)  Choices: new package/base-files/...?

My guess is 'cygwin', because it is a prerequisite of all packages, correct?  If
not 'cygwin', then some other package that is a prerequisite of all packages
because all packages may have user-modifiable configuration files that could
need updating (if not modified) with (new) default configuration files when they
(the packages) are updated.

Comment 7 John Morrison 2004-11-26 21:01:10 UTC

Humm, I don't think cfg would be happy about that.  But I could be wrong :)

Time to return this bug to the email lists?

Comment 8 Mark Harig 2004-11-26 21:04:40 UTC

If a prerequisite package cannot be agreed upon (it may be too early), then each
package's script could simply include the common code, instead of factoring it
out to a single script.

Comment 9 Reini Urban 2004-12-10 14:32:39 UTC

fixed with man-1.5o1-1
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-12/msg00060.html